· Private foundation
Jeff and Marieke Rothschild Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $50k–250k2 grants · $250k
- $250k+16 grants · $29M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY | $5,500,000 |
| PRESIDENT & TRUSTEES OF COLBY COLLEGE | $5,000,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION | $5,000,000 |
| REWILD | $2,500,000 |
| NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST | $2,000,000 |
| FOOD FOR EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC | $1,600,000 |
| AVINA AMERICAS INC | $1,000,000 |
| RAINBOW WORLD FUND | $1,000,000 |
| CLEAN SLATE INITIATIVE INC | $1,000,000 |
| EVERY CURE INC | $1,000,000 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC | $1,000,000 |
| LAND TRUST OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY | $1,000,000 |
| GREAT BARRIER REEF FOUNDATION USA INC | $500,000 |
| LIFESPAN EXTENSION ADVOCACY FOUNDATION INC | $263,000 |
| KENYAN KIDS FOUNDATION | $250,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 57% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +8% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 52% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- LTLAND TRUST OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY3× · 2021–2024 · $9.2M · revenue +310% · 59% of their budget
- KKKENYAN KIDS FOUNDATION INC5× · 2020–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +170% · 98% of their budget
- SCSanta Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship2× · 2022–2023 · $500k · revenue +8%
Funded once
- SFSAN FRANCISCO OPERA ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2023 · $5.0M · revenue -3%
Vanderbilt Universityone grant, 2023 · $5.0M · revenue +24%- LLLife Lab Science Programone grant, 2023 · $1.0M · revenue -42%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…
The uc santa barbara foundation actively works to further the goals of the university of california, santa barbara. the foundation seeks to maintain and nurture the university's quality and distinction. on behalf of the campus, the…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The Sierra Fund (TSF) is a non-profit organization with a mission to restore ecosystem and community resiliency in the Sierra Nevada.
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
See attached statementprimary missionfuture 500 builds trust between corporations, advocates, investors, and philanthropists to advance business as a force for good. we are experts in stakeholder engagement with over 25 years of experience…
Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.
The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.
The ucla foundation is the giving, receiving, and investing arm of the ucla campus. the foundation enables private donors to help build, sustain and advance one of the world's finest academic and research institutions. private philanthropy…
FFWD accelerates the growth of technology nonprofits by providing financial and human capital to help scale technology solutions for education, environmental, health, and human rights issues.
Food & water watch conducts extensive research and public education to ensure the food and water we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced. so we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New Venture Fund and the most unlike its peers is San Francisco Opera Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 17 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 14% of your grantees by number, and just 7% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
26 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 26 of the 27 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LAND TRUST OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO OPERA ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds The President and Trustees of Colby College ↗
- Who funds Vanderbilt University ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST ↗
- Who funds Rainbow World Fund ↗
- Who funds REWILD ↗
- Who funds KENYAN KIDS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds FOOD FOR EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds EVERY CURE INC ↗
- Who funds Life Lab Science Program ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds AVINA AMERICAS INC ↗
- Who funds CLEAN SLATE INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship ↗
- Who funds Great Barrier Reef Foundation USA Inc ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds FIAT LUX FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LIFESPAN EXTENSION ADVOCACY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEXTGEN CLIMATE AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds The Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Foundation ↗
- Who funds INKOMOKO ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Jeff and Marieke Rothschild Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Jeff and Marieke Rothschild Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Jeff and Marieke Rothschild Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.